Below is a link to a 22.5-minute video which is a rehearsed version of a speech (with power point and video and animation) to be delivered before several faculty and deans of various Christian Universities at the Christian Scholar’s Conference at Lipscomb University June 7, 2017.
My talk addresses the design of chromatin and the problem of evil.
PS
You can see me listed in the Lipscomb conference schedule (with my name misspelled as “Cordoba”):
http://www.lipscomb.edu/csc/sessions
Guess who’s going to be listening to my talk?
Jeff McCormack, Dean, College of Natural and Applied Sciences, Oklahoma Christian University, Discussant
Jon Lowrance, Professor, Department of Biology, Lipscomb University, Discussant
The Christian Scholars Conference advertises a registration fee of 195 dollars and lodging fee of 195 dollars for a total of 390 dollars, but you can get to hear me speak free-of charge via youtube! Get your free viewing at youtube while supplies last. 🙂
What is the point of this post? It seems to be nothing more than “Look at me! Look at me!” Surely you can do better than that.
To solicit the usual free-of-charge editorial review which the regulars here seem so eager to offer.
For starters, regarding epigenetic/epigenomic RAM, were my numbers in the ball park? Did you find 10^21 bytes for networked epigenetic RAM objectionable?
I don’t like videos, and I suspect others don’t either. If you want editorial review, change the medium. And all the references to this supposedly prestigious conference serve no purpose other than to puff you up.
I’m here to puff you up.
I hardly ever agree with Harshman but this time I do…
I don’t quite get the connection of …the design of chromatin and the problem of evil…
J-mac,
Did you watch the video?
So did you watch the video? It is a rehearsal for the actual talk with the powerpoints, etc.
Does it also include twenty-seven 8-by-10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was…?
Just curious.
OMagain,
Awh shucks. What a nice thing to say.
You know, you’d think of all people, Jesus would use perfect grammar/spelling. Perhaps there was a mistake in translation…
The point here, Sal, is that if you want anyone to respond to your post, make an actual post, not a video. The print medium (well, the electronically-represented font medium, at least).
I tried to get through it, but I failed. The first 3 minutes are just you trying to make yourself, John Sanford, and the conference seem important. When you finally got into the subject of the talk, it turned out to be about a bible verse, and then went on to representing clay tablets as forms of computer memory. At that point I stopped in order to prevent my gag reflex from operating.
Again, a post summarizing any actual science there may be in the talk would be helpful.
Well, thank you taking the time to watch.
Clay tablets are artificial memory, not computer memory. You misinterpreted that probably because your gag reflex was about to kick in. But thank you any way for taking the time to watch. Hugs.
PS
I had a typo on the opening of the video. I just caught it. Next edition will have that corrected.
John Sanford is important, more influential on the world of biology than Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Jerry Coyne put together. What inventions does Jerry Coyne have in the Smithsonian Museum of American History or similar venue?
It’s ok to write me off, I’m a nobody, but not John.
Not relevant. The point of talking about him was clearly to bask in his reflected glow. Know thyself.
I have a shakespearean grasp of language I’ll have you know. The internet said so!
All I can say is that I am glad that I didn’t spent the $390.
Sal,
I’ve watched the video again. I still don’t see the connection between the scientific part of the video i.e. the information storage capabilities of the cell the problem of evil. Even when epigenetics come into the picture, I still think that it’s has none of little to do with evil. If it does, you didn’t make clear enough…
My personal impression is that you’ve misapplied or misunderstood the meaning of the word evil. By substituting it with words such as imperfection or corruption your message might take on more clarity, IMO.
Hi Sal,
A few quick comments.
“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
This is a mis-quote. What Gates actually said was: ‘Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.’ (Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, Viking, Penguin Group, 1996, Revised Edition, p. 228)
“Each neuron has about 1,000 connections to other neurons.”
This is an under-estimate. 7,000 would be closer, and 10,000 in a young child.
Here’s a quote from Wikipedia at http://www.neurology.org/content/64/12/2004
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron:
“The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10^11 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 10^14 to 5 x 10^14 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).” [Source: Drachman D (2005). “Do we have brain to spare?”. Neurology. 64 (12): 2004–5.]
And here’s another:
The human neocortex contains approximately 1.5×10^14 synapses, connecting its 19–23 billion neurons. [Source: Pakkenberg, B., Pelvig, D., Marner, L., Bundgaard, M. J., Gundersen, H. J. G., Nyengaard, J. R., & Regeur, L. (2003). Aging and the human neocortex. Experimental Gerontology, 38(1-2), 95-99. doi:10.1016/S0531-5565(02)00151-1]
“There are about 100 billion neurons in the human brain.”
Close enough. Actually there are 86 billion. See the following:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/brain-metrics/are_there_really_as_many
“The brain’s memory capacity is 2.5×10^15 bytes.”
This source backs you up:
http://www.clinicalneurologyspecialists.com/what-is-the-memory-capacity-of-the-human-brain/
On the other hand, another source states:
“Estimates of the human brain’s memory capacity vary wildly from 1 to 1,000 terabytes” [ http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html ]
“There are 8.3×10^21 bytes of epigenetic RAM per human.”
Yeah, but a lot of that information would be (a) duplicated elsewhere or (b) junk.
Hope that helps.
Wow. For a deity that’s supposed to be ‘all that’–it turns out Jesus can’t even spell ‘Who’s’!
ETA: Just noticed I was ninja’d (if that’s the right expression) by Robin. Sorry.
VJTorley:
Thank you thank you thank you!
Excellent! Thank you. I can point out I used the lower figure, suggesting things are more fearfully and wonderfully made.
I’m aware of that figure, I’m not yet convinced since it is not yet accepted. I can of course cite the lower figure just to be safe. If you found that figure, others may also, so I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by citing the lower figure. Thank you!
In case the objection is made, I will point out BITCOIN and other self-healing architectures have redundancy factors in excess of 400. Something as complex as a human could have even deeper redundancy factors (what you call duplication). If you consider our self-healing abilities, it is amazing.
Next, the sentiment is that most of the epigenome is not junk, at least not initially, until we age and get a lot of junk. We don’t know for sure, but the numbers are the total number of chemical states, and the sentiment is that in terms of brain function, it is used.
In any case, the video was initially put together as part of a suddenly unexpected review process since 3 creationists were presenting in the same session and that created no small stir: me, Kirt Martin, Nathaniel Jeanson.
Thank you very much for taking the time to help me out. I know you have some expertise in animal neurology, so many many thanks. I’m indebted to you sir, as I have been many times. God bless you.
Whose sentiment? On what basis?
J-Mac,
Thank you very very much for taking time to view my video and offer suggestions. That is very helpful and I will reword a few things based on your comments.
First, I created some confusion through my OP when I said:
“My talk addresses the design of chromatin and the problem of evil.”
So it’s actually two topics. The complexity of design is “fearfully and wonderfully made”, but the level complexity also suggests the genome is also more functional than evolutionary theory predicts. The ENCODE and RoadmapEpigenomics projects at the NIH were the inspiration for the widely contested claim that the genome is at least 80% functional. This is rooted in great part to the fact that there are as many chromatin-based epigenomes in the human body as there are cells, this is in contrast to the fact the genome is mostly the same per cell. Further the epigenome is also different based on the cell phase.
So this creates a paradox. On the one hand we have the complexity of chromatin, on the other hand the complexity cannot be sustained by natural selection, and hence we are also dying as a species. This raises the question of how could this be an intelligently designed creation? I attempt to solve the problem of “bad design” (death and decay) with “good design” (like the brain and chromatin).
Now, for the reader’s benefit, this whole presentation went through 5 or so iterations by committee! Way back in August of 2016 the ID community was interested in getting a little more info on the ENCODE and RoadmapEpigenomic, the E4 Epitranscriptome project, the glycome projects and the higher order chromatin projects at the NIH and elsewhere. I was recruited to put together a news report. That was Version 1.
But then it was too much data and too technical for a short presentation, and then I found out the news report had to be tailored to the computer science and engineering faculty that have no bio background. I was initially under the impression it would be an ID conference, it wasn’t.
So Version 1 went into the trash can.
Next, I then wrote a smaller version on just the ENCODE project and genetic entropy. That was version 2.
Then I hear some in the conference were unhappy I was taking a direct shot at evolutionary theory! So Version 2 went into the trash can sometime in February. I couldn’t give too much of a frontal assault on evolutionary theory. Ok so version 2 is in the trash can. So I wrote version 3.
Next, when the abstracts were published in March, the session then drew the interest of biology faculty from various universities, and then I had a totally different audience than a purely engineering audience. So Version 3 went into the trash can since I had to add back some biology stuff while also trying to address an audience of engineering faculty.
So then I have version 4. Then I find out quite a number of online distance learning people were going to be in the conference.
Especially now since (trans)gender studies degree at Duke charges $300,000, and we can now deliver cheaper and better college online than a worthless, the time is ripe for alternatives to higher education.
When I was in the defense industry I worked in computer based training of pilots, and it was amazing how much faster the pilots could learn via computer (up to 22 times faster!). Plus Trinity College and Seminary which does online international training of pastors and church workers offered me to teach ID and creation science. Given that most Christian colleges and seminaries don’t want ID and creation science to be taught, this was a great opportunity. I had to focus on a more online orientation.
Plus Dr. Sanford in April offered more incentives for me to promote his work. So I said, let’s try a presentation also amenable to online presentation plus plugging some of Dr. Sanford’s work.
So Version 5 is what you see. Now you know how this presentation got totally re-written 5 times and yielded a video.
Version 6 will add the few tweaks suggested in by y’all and other forums.
Thank you very much. God bless you.
Sal
This discussion:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/02/encode-workshop-discusses-function-in.html?showComment=1487512025624#c8718818614812734089
Well done Sal. Congratulations.
This from the guy who is posting a series of OPs on a book that is 15 years old, lol!
Suck less. Blow harder.
LoL!
No more videos from you Richardthughes!
If I want to be an acknowledged Skeptical Zone Skeptic do I have to be an asshole? Because I think I qualify.
An intelligent designer would have used the same “wire” for both reception and transmission. None of this dendrite/axon b.s.
Well, you definitely qualify as an asshole.
stcordova: John Sanford is important, more influential on the world of biology than Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Jerry Coyne put together.
Sanford is not important in the fields of population genetics and evolutionary biology, which would seem to be the relevant ones here.
That wasn’t an answer to either of my questions. It’s not very polite of you to dodge.
Says the guy who puts people who dare challenge his nonsensical claims on Ignore.
Sanford and Dan Graur agree that “if ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.” There is no disagreement about the numbers of population genetics, only the level of functionality of the genome. Sanford is not out on a limb as far as the numbers go, at issue is the functionality of the Genome.
He’s shunned by the evolutionary biology community and occasionally given the cold shoulder in the creationists an ID community, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
He retired in his 30’s, he’s now doing what he is doing because he feels it’s his moral duty. Imho, he’s been ignored for too long.
In any case, no need to settle the issues today. When I was at ENCODE 2015 I was made aware of 20,000,000 GWAS genomes that are expected to be tracked plus other genetic databases. We will know in time if the genome is indeed deteriorating, and with the 4D Nucleome project and the Hi-C experiments and the Cat’s cradle hypothesis by John Rinn, we may have a better handle on the proportion of the human genome that is functional.
So, Sanford has put forward an actual testable scientific prediction. If he’s right, then his claims will again be landmark, perhaps even on the level of his influence on the world of genetically modified organisms. Frankly, I don’t know anyone in the ID community that who is a more successful professional biologist. His claims are not just important as a critique for evolutionary theory but as an assessment of the human condition.
If humanity is deteriorating and dying, doesn’t it make the issue of evolutionary theory a bit lower on the order of priorities? In any case, as I quoted Lord Kelvin, we have the sober scientific certainty humanity will end.
If it gives you guys some jollies to think you descended from ape-like creatures, then I respect that works for you, it doesn’t for me as well as a lot of Christians who place their hope and consolation in the next life.
It may be a sobering thought to consider the possibility humanity is dying rather than evolving to greater and greater capability. Christendom is probably better equipped to offer comfort if genetic deterioration is indeed the destiny of the human race. That was the motivation for the last 5 minutes of my presentation.
Thanks Mung.
stcordova,
Wow. Speechless.
Sal: “He retired in his 30’s, he’s now doing what he is doing because he feels it’s his moral duty. Imho, he’s been ignored for too long.”
Wikipedia says he was born in 1950 and retired in 1998.
1998 – 1950 = 30 in ID years.
Sal: “If it gives you guys some jollies to think you descended from ape-like creatures, then I respect that works for you, it doesn’t for me as well as a lot of Christians who place their hope and consolation in the next life.”
The apes aren’t too happy either. They seem to feel it’s eight million years of evolution for naught.
If evolution is wrong, that does not make any old crackpot theory right. You get that?
That would explain why you are wasting the one you have right now on this nonsense.
great video and your right to post it. lots of quick posts.
i agree the cell is like a computer. That is the cell is like a memory chip.
iI think creationists should lead the way, because we already know human thinking comes from the soul and not the brain, in saying that all people have is a soul and a hugh memory machine. likewise the genes are just bits of memory.
So reductionist interpretation should say memory is the essence of living things except for the soul which is from God.
i think healing would greatly progress forward also with a rejection of concepts of brain/mind etc.
i don’t know if scordova is only discussing dna as like memory but its something of insight, i think, for creationism.
very glad for this video.
It’s not about what we want for fucks sake. It might be like that for you, but please refrain from projecting your views unto others.
Apparently to you, the facts can’t just be the facts, they have to be emotionally appealing.
It reeks through almost everything you write on the subject of evolution. It’s always a proxy for a debate between theism and atheism, which in turn is a proxy for a debate between what to you is emotionally intolerable, and the desirable fantasy you wish to substitute it with.
It seems to be the entirety of your motivation in life. You’re sad, afraid and you want comfort. What is actually true is less important than what you personally find emotionally appealing. You disqualify yourself as a rational actor in this debate.
I don’t see evolutionists arguing much from actual fact to prove their theory. When I confront them with real details, they say they don’t know, they don’t have answers.
Evolution of chromatin is a serious problem. As shown in the video chromatin has histone readers, writers, and erasers. Not shown (from lack of time) is various forms of chromatin compacting requiring histone reading and writing and erasing to make chromatin accessible for transcription and replication. These require simultaneously appearing machines. The reading and writing machines of histones involves more machines than DNA replication. This is a staggering leap of complexity.
So why the emotional commitment to evolutionary theory in the absence of facts. You guys could say you don’t know.
I’ve said, I don’t know, but I find somethings more believable.
In any case, the bottom line, “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.” We’ll see who is closer to the truth in due time.
Of course that’s just plain horseshit right there.
Rather, what you’re demanding is a level of detail no historical science an be expected to meet. Which would be fine if you didn’t hold to it on such a colossal double standard. What is the level of detail for any ID hypothesis? Zero. Literally zero. God did it predicts literally nothing at all.
.
Correction: When confronted on some details, they don’t know because there isn’t enough data to determine what is the case.
A bit of a difference there.
A problem in what sense? Is it that evolution can’t account for it, even in principle? Or that nobody has bothered to analyze the evolution of it? Or that there isn’t enough data, so whatever attempt at an answer we come up with is going to be speculative?
Do we have to know how everything in our own biology evolved, to be able to say with a reasonable level of confidence, that we evolved?
To make the answer to that question more intuitively obvious, consider this analogy: Do we have to know exactly where a man purported to have crossed the country of Russia, put his foot every step of the way, to be able to say with a reasonable level of confidence that the crossed the country of Russia?
Obviously not.
It’s a problem for gradualism. Now if you think histone readers, writers, and erasers along with chromatin remodelers and chromatin based DNA repair (different from non-chromatin-based repair) can pop up by random mutation, then you believe in statistical miracles. But if you believe is such miracles, you may as well be a creationist.
You’re welcome to believe in evolution despite me pointing out these obstacles, but that is by faith on your part, not by sight. Evolutionist only pretend they know, when in fact most of common descent theory is nothing more than an article of faith without much systematic deduction where it really counts like mechanically feasible explanations (as opposed to the circularly reasoned phylogenies that are the staple of evolutionary “proof”).
Evolutionary theory lacks systematic deduction relative to what is found in other disciplines like say applied physics. If engineers (aka applied physicists) built airplanes like evolutionary theorists build theories, you might not feel to comfortable flying them, and that’s assuming such airplanes could even be constructed in the first place.
I’d like to thank VJ Torley, J-Mac, and others who watched and commented on my video. Other reviewers in other forums caught typos in my power points, and I’ll be correcting those.
I will also make some content changes in light of VJ and J-mac’s and other’s comments. I will attempt to make another release of the video possibly before the conference. But if I do so, I expect there will be yet another revision AFTER the conference based on the feedback I get from the audience there. So there will possibly be yet another version of the video.
Thanks to everyone, including my usual detractors, for their help in getting my talk ready for June 7.
Heh. Another two dozen posts of Sal talking about Sal. What a surprise.